Retooling the Iron Ring Ceremony: A Movement to Reimagine the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer has been an important rite of passage for Canadian engineering graduates for almost 100 years. Many engineering students eagerly anticipate receiving their ring, and rightfully feel pride in their accomplishments. However, the Ritual is not a proper representation of the profession and maintains engineering's culture of objectivity, lack of agency, lack of transparency, and colonialism. The Retool the Ring group formed immediately following the CEEA-ACÉG 2022 conference to collaborate in advocacy work for making changes to the Ritual. In this paper, we outline our motivations and approaches to engaging in the work, present the outcomes, and reflect on the ongoing process of change, and the work that remains to be done. As engineering community members, we aim to bring engineers, educators, and other stakeholders into this conversation and offer an invitation for others to take up this call to action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.070 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".